So I’m watching the replay of the USHoR debate of the Schiavo case on C-SPAN, and I realize why many GOP’s seem to tune out debate from the other side. To the US Dem Dopers, I’m letting you in on a secret you know well from these boards. Tell your reps to stay on topic.
NOTE: I don’t have a transcript to link to, and if I did it would be the full thing forcing everyone to search it out. I’m hoping someone better at that will be along in a few hours.
Anyway, the debate is sometimes heated, with many on both sides using personal anecdotes to make their case as it pertains to this argument. Shit, even Barney Frank earned a few points in my respect column. For the most part, it’s civil and non-personal.
And then Mel Watt (D-North Carolina) gets some time.
The starting point, and most of the speech, is pointing across the aisle and preaching about the GOP trying to starve people to death. He tied in the Schiavo case by only mentioning her tube, and continued the harrangue about the GOP actively working to strave people to death in the US. The irony, of course, registered immediately in my conservative mind, and then the fun to have with the diatribe kicked in.
Whatever Watt had to say in his vendetta about some resolution he wanted passed, he shouldn’t carry it over into another, unrelated Bill.
I’ve seen many threads in GD where an off-topic/carryover rant turns into an ass-handing.
The bill went through because a representative went off-topic? No, I don’t think so. It passed because: 1) there is a Republican majority in both houses and there were far more Republicans present at this unusual sessions, 2) half the Democrats who were there supported the bill, either because they believe in the various kinds of crap going around or because they were too scared to make a fuss.
It’s not really partisan. It’s kind of uni-partisan. One party is mobilized and freaking out and what have you, and the other (along with most of the population) is annoying and has nobody representing them. So…
I was thinking about this on the way into work this morning and I see a silver lining. I think it’s a good idea to have a stronger federal government and much weaker state’s rights. So that’s the silver lining here, the Republicans, who claim to be strong on state’s rights, are eroding them with this. Now I wish they’d quit running up the deficit.
The Republicans are quickly becoming the party of unintended irony.
As I said in the OP, I don’t think so either. Watt didn’t go off-topic. He was never on-topic. He used the debate to rant about some other bill that is starving Americans to death, then tied it together by mention Schiavo.
These are members of the US freaking Congress getting away with shit that wouldn’t pass muster in GD. That was supposed to be my point. Sorry for any incoherence, I thought you all were used to that from me by now.
Point given. This case really is a shitstorm, but there are serious long-term consequences to be dealt with. That’s the angle of it all that I’m looking at.
Well, this is truly a disgrace. There is nothing in this case that justifies federal involvement, except a desire to do the right thing. But we have dual sovereign governments for a reason.
It’s an easy way to throw a bone to the hard-religious pro-lifers in their base - in lieu of actually doing anything more than lip service about banning abortions, their main issue.
There’s no problem with pointing out the simple hypocrisies in the GOP position, is there? They’re easier to grasp than the equal-protection issues in singling out the still-pumping corpse of Terry Schiavo for special treatment.
This Republican has been alternating between outrage and laughing her ass off at this. If this isn’t the kick in the pants I need to leave the Republican party, I don’t know what is.
I am mortified that so many so-called Republicans would vote in favor of this bullshit.
If I was in the Congress and if I was elected as a Democrat (not that I would ever run for that other party) I would have abstained. My reasoning: 1) we don’t have the votes, why give the right to life people a vote to hold over your head in the next election? 2) the bill doesn’t mean squat and will be thrown out quick as a bunny by the courts.
The Republicans are doing nothing more than pandering to the right to life faction. Since they are unwilling to tackle the abortion issue, this is one bone they can throw to one of their favorite dogs.
If we can get anything positive out of this whole tragedy, perhaps it should be first that we should all make living wills. Secondly, the States need to legislate the treatment of those that enter vegetative states without such a will. Spell out the conditions for pulling the plug or stopping feeding. I’m not a doctor, but it would be reasonable to me that a jury of six doctors using CAT scans and EEGs should be able to differentiate between keeping a human alive and prolonging the death of one that has already permanently lost all mental capabilities. I think any reasonable test would have concluded many years ago that keeping Terri alive is serving no purpose.
Bricker You’ve said this " The right thing to do" a couple of times now. What are you basing this on? Are you against people deciding not to live a life of mere existence or is it that in THIS case, because she didn’t write a living will, “we” should allow her to live regardless of what the independent court have stated they believe her wishes to be?
Do you doubt that her condition is what the independent Drs, Court etc, say it is? I’m trying to understand the other side of this argument and quite frankly for the most part it seems littered with half-truths, misunderstanding of her condition and outright lies.
Since you’re one of the few people so far to say aloud what the screw-up involving the Congress in this, I thought perhaps you might be able to explain why the right thing would be to keep this woman alive despite the independent evidence that, that’s not what she wanted.
UrbanChic, before you leave, tell me why I shouldn’t also based on my reply to the quote.
black455, this has gone so far beyond state’s rights as to be almost funny. Funny in the sense that liberals are now, after almost 30 years, claiming state’s rights. :rolleyes:
This has nothing to do with state’s rights at this point. This is so friggin big now that it’s a national debate. And a national debate it will end as. I’ve been trying to explain that this is now a national debate that will determine many future laws of “non-responsive” people.
Ever heard the phrase “slippery-slope”? If you’re in the same situation would you rather know the rules before deciding to not sign a living will, or roll the dice and hope that what you want is carried out by those thinking they know?
Can you point to the place in the Constitution wherein something that becomes a matter of national debate suddenly falls under the purview of the Congress?
What puzzles me about this case is that I cannot even imagine a justification however weak, for Congress claiming jurisdiction here. Has any such claim been put forth, or is this one gigantic “Suck it!” to the Constitution?
Kudos, though, duffer, on your politicization of this woman’s life; you’re truly a partisan’s partisan.
Yep. It’s all about politics, and the Democrats are right to call the Republicans on it. This is nothing that should have involved Congress, but since it’s got such a potential big political score for the Republicans, they’re seizing on it. A memo has been circulated among Republicans stating as much, though Republicans all over the Hill have been denying that they’ve ever even seen this memo. At a time when Republicans have egg on their faces for their successful opening up of the Arctic Refuge for oil drilling, and while Republicans’ revisions on Social Security policy are earning them resentment right and left, they need a feel-good distraction to make them look better, and a distraction that hamstrings the Democrats is all the better for them.
Word has it that this is designed to target Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), who has not fully embraced the conservatively correct agenda. Nelson is up for reëlection next year. Winning as a Democrat in Nebraska is tough enough; winning as a Democrat in Nebraska while you’re being tarred for not supporting conservative social issues is probably going to be a lot tougher. Hard to believe that this is the same state that gave us such forward thinkers as Bob Kerrey and Doug Bereuter, isn’t it?
